My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-25-1985 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1985
>
03-25-1985 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/17/2025 10:40:32 AM
Creation date
11/17/2025 10:32:18 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
255
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTLL THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING III-A,D MANCII 25, 1985. PAGE 6 <br />a ;00' lot the assessment would be $9,751.20/unit <br />1�— a 150' lot the assessment would be $12,080.20/unit <br />for a 200' lot the assessment would be $14,415.20/unit <br />City Engineer C:uok did note that the last few sewer projects <br />went strictly by a unit basis or the same charge for everyone <br />regardless of their lot size. Cook noted i f the Council was <br />to choose the per unit basis for everyone the assessment <br />would be $10,724.94. <br />Planning Commission member Rovegno stated that he happens to <br />have one of the largest lots in the sewer project and doesn't <br />feel that he should be penalized because he conforms to more <br />of the zoning code then the others with the small lots. <br />Rovegno noted that its the smaller lots that forced the sewer <br />onto the area in the first place. Rovegno explained that he <br />has ample area to expand or repair his septic system if <br />needed. Rovegno asked that Council use the same unit basis <br />for everyone rather than penalizing the larger lots. <br />Rovegno felt that the Art Center should be included in the <br />project becuase of its quasi -commercial use. <br />The consensus of the Counci 1 was to base the assessments on a <br />per unit basis rather than the lateral charge. <br />Councilmember L. Adams moved, Councilmember Grabek <br />seconded, to direct staff to include the Art Center in the <br />project and in the public hearing if possible. Motion, Ayes <br />(3), Nays (0). <br />City Attorney Radio stated that he would investigate whether <br />the City would have to start all the hearings over again <br />because they weren't included from the start of the project. <br />Radio noted that they did receive published notice in the <br />paper. Radio noted that he would report back to the Council . <br />Councilmenber Grabek felt the project should be assessed <br />1.00% against the Crystal Bay residents and not include the <br />general tax payer. <br />Councilmember L. Adams concurred with Grabek that the <br />project should be 100% assessed, but added that the Crystal <br />Bay residents that qualify should be allowed to apply for <br />financial assistance through the grant program. Adams <br />stated that the City should not exercise its right to take <br />property trom the resident that cannot pay until property is <br />sold or the person has died. <br />Council felt +-hat in the notice to the general public and <br />Crystal Bay residents that the ratio should be 50-100% <br />assessed as the options for the Council to consider at the <br />assessment hearing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.